|
|
||||||||
1
Department of Radiology, Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust, Hull Royal
Infirmary, Anlaby Rd., Hull HU3 2JZ, United Kingdom.
2
Department of Urology, Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Trust, Hull Royal
Infirmary, Hull HU3 2JZ, United Kingdom.
3
Department of Radiology, York Health NHS Trust, York District Hospital,
Wigginton Rd., York YO31 8HE, United Kingdom.
Received February 21, 2000;
accepted after revision May 15, 2000.
Address correspondence to D. J. Breen.
Abstract
|
|
|---|
MATERIALS AND METHODS. Over a 32-month period (April 1996 through November 1998), 4892 scrotal sonographic examinations were performed in 4819 patients at four referral centers. All patients underwent high-resolution (7- to 10-MHz) imaging. Using a computerized word search (n = 4102; testicular microlithiasis, calcification, microliths, calcific foci, tumor, neoplasm, cancer, hyperecho, hypoecho, heterogen, and carcinoma) and manual retrieval (n = 790), cases of tumor, testicular microlithiasis (>5 microliths per sonogram), and testicular microlithiasis plus tumor were pulled and retrospectively reviewed. The presence and type of tumor were confirmed at histology after orchidectomy.
RESULTS. Fifty-four tumors were found among 4892 scrotal sonograms (28 seminomas, 14 teratomas, 8 mixed germ cell tumors, 2 Leydig cell tumors, and 2 non-Hodgkin's lymphomas). Testicular microlithiasis was present in 33 patients, giving a prevalence of 0.68%. Concurrent tumor and testicular microlithiasis were detected in seven patients, a relative risk of tumor in testicular microlithiasis was 21.6-fold (95% confidence limits: 10.6-fold, 44.2-fold). In one patient with testicular microlithiasis, a previous orchidectomy for mixed germ cell tumor had been performed (not included in the relative risk calculation).
CONCLUSION. In a referred population of 4819 patients the prevalence of testicular microlithiasis was 0.68% and the relative risk of concurrent tumor was 21.6-fold. Sonographic surveillance of testicular microlithiasis cases for tumor is mandatory.
|
|
|---|
To our knowledge, this study analyzes the largest cohort of patients referred for scrotal sonography thus far; we assessed the prevalence of sonographic testicular microlithiasis and the relative risk of concurrent tumor.
|
|
|---|
The presence of testicular microlithiasis was based on the consensus opinion of two consultant abdominal radiologists using the accepted typical sonographic appearance as described by Backus et al. [2] of multiple small nonshadowing echogenic foci up to 3 mm in size, with five or more evident on a single sonogram (Figs. 1 and 2). Solitary calculi or multiple coarse shadowing calcifications were not included.
|
|
The presence and type of sonographically suspected tumor were confirmed at histology after orchidectomy and in one case by paraaortic nodal biopsy. Any relevant previous medical history was recorded from the case notes.
All patients underwent high-resolution sonography on a range of commercially available scanners (Elegra Advanced Platform, Siemens, Bracknell, UK; SSD2000, Aloka, Tokyo, Japan; Eccocee, Toshiba, Crawley, UK; Diasonics VSP Masters and Gateway, IGE, Slough, UK; ATL Ultramark 9 and HDI5000, Philips Medical Group, London, UK; and 128, Acuson, Uxbridge, UK) with 7.5- to 10-MHz linear array probes or a 7-MHz sector probe (Acuson 128).
The prevalence of testicular microlithiasis in the referred population and a relative risk analysis for concurrent tumor and testicular microlithiasis were calculated.
All patients in whom testicular microlithiasis was detected were scheduled for 6-month or annual sonographic follow-up.
|
|
|---|
Testicular microlithiasis was present in 33 patients (age range, 13-61 years; mean, 37.2 years) resulting in a prevalence of 0.68%. Concurrent tumor and testicular microlithiasis were detected in seven patients (age range, 24-43 years; mean, 31 years) (Fig. 3). The calculated relative risk of concurrent tumor in the setting of testicular microlithiasis is 21.6-fold (95% confidence limits: 10.6-fold, 44.2-fold).
|
A 46-year-old man, not included in the relative risk calculation as a concurrent tumor, had undergone previous orchidectomy for a mixed germ cell tumor in 1990. The original sonogram from 1990 was not available for review and only testicular microlithiasis was seen on subsequent sonographic examinations of the remaining testis performed during the study period. Review of the histologic specimen from 1990 did, however, show intratubular germ cell neoplasia and intratubular calcifications (pathologic testicular microlithiasis) in the background testis. By implication, sonographic testicular microlithiasis in 1990 may have been subtle, unrecognized, or missed. If this patient was included in the calculations as having concurrent tumor and testicular microlithiasis, the resulting relative risk would increase to 24.7-fold (95% confidence limits: 12.7-fold, 48.1-fold).
A 43-year-old man with testicular microlithiasis and tumor had also undergone previous orchidectomy. This was performed in 1988 for seminoma without preoperative sonographic examination. Histologic review showed intratubular germ cell neoplasia in the adjacent background testis but no pathologic testicular microlithiasis. This patient is included in the relative risk calculation because he presented later in the study period with seminoma in the contralateral testis in the setting of sonographic testicular microlithiasis.
|
|
|---|
Several associations have been reported with testicular microlithiasis including Klinefelter's syndrome, cryptorchidism, Down's syndrome, male pseudohermaphroditism, pulmonary alveolar microlithiasis, previous radiotherapy, and subfertility states [3, 13,14,15,16]. The most important association is with testicular neoplasms [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]; a strong association is again confirmed by this study. These are, however, only associations, and no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Indeed, testicular microlithiasis may simply act as a marker of an abnormal testis affected by a range of abnormal processes, all of which may in their own right be associated with testicular malignancy.
Previous reports have indicated a prevalence of testicular microlithiasis of 0.6% in a population referred for symptomatic scrotal sonography [1]. In our referred patient cohort we found testicular microlithiasis in 0.68% of patients. The mean age of patients presenting with testicular microlithiasis alone was higher than that previously observed: 37.2 years (age range, 13-61 years) versus 22.3 years [5]. However, the reported age range for this condition has ranged from 10 months to 70 years [2, 5]. In this study, the mean age of patients with concurrent testicular microlithiasis and tumor was 31 years (age range, 24-43 years), similar to that which has been previously observed (29.8 years) [5]. These mean ages and age ranges suggest that testicular microlithiasis becomes less significant in terms of tumor risk when detected in older patients. The overall incidence of testicular microlithiasis in specific age groups remains unclear. Although covering a wide age range, our referred patient cohort tends to reflect the age group deemed at highest risk of testicular tumor.
The exact cause of testicular microlithiasis remains unclear. Pathologically, the microliths are intratubular bodies with a central calcified core and surrounding concentric laminations composed of collagen fibers. The microliths are thought to result from defective phagocytosis of degenerate tubular cells by Sertoli's cells [17]. The question remains as to whether the presence of microliths indicates abnormal tubular epithelium and Sertoli cell dysfunction or their presence incites epithelial change.
A number of reports have highlighted the close association between testicular microlithiasis and intratubular germ cell neoplasia. Based on autopsy data, the prevalence of intratubular germ cell neoplasia in the general population is approximately 0.8% [18], and it has been found in 4.5% (n = 1188) of biopsies of the contralateral testis in patients presenting with testicular tumor [19]. This figure is likely to be an under-estimate; intratubular germ cell neoplasia may be focal or missed by virtue of sampling error. Intratubular germ cell neoplasia can progress to carcinoma in 50% of cases [20]. Of particular note, in one series of 21 patients with testicular tumor and intratubular germ cell neoplasia, 14 (67%) were found to have sonographically identifiable testicular microlithiasis in the ipsilateral parenchyma [11]. This small series suggests that testicular microlithiasis might be used as a marker for underlying intratubular germ cell neoplasia.
Despite a compelling association between tumor, intratubular germ cell neoplasia, and testicular microlithiasis, there are few reports of tumor developing in the setting of testicular microlithiasis. This subject was recently reviewed by Ganem et al. [21] who summarized five reported cases in which a tumor had arisen in testicular microlithiasis between 10 months and 11 years after the original finding of microlithiasis [7, 8, 22,23,24]. To date, we have accrued 234 months of follow-up scanning from our cases of testicular microlithiasis, with the longest follow-up being 38 months. Thus far, no metachronous tumor has been detected. The 43-year-old patient previously described does, however, have testicular microlithiasis and seminoma in the remaining testis where a previous orchidectomy yielded seminoma and intratubular germ cell neoplasia.
Testicular microlithiasis has also been reported in association with intraabdominal [25] and intrathoracic germ cell tumors [3]. We have encountered a similar case: a 37-year-old man underwent excision of a poorly differentiated malignant mediastinal teratoma in 1994. Scrotal sonography at that time revealed low-grade testicular microlithiasis but no focal mass. Onco-logic follow-up revealed no tumor recurrence. The patient presented again in 1999 with lower abdominal discomfort. During his diagnostic workup a scrotal sonogram revealed low-grade testicular microlithiasis and a focal hypoechoic area at the lower pole of the left testis measuring approximately 12 mm (Fig. 4). A left inguinal orchidectomy was performed. Histology revealed atrophic seminiferous tubules lined only by Sertoli's cells with no evidence of intratubular germ cell neoplasia or focal tumor. A small fibrotic focus was seen but could not be directly equated with the sonographic abnormality. The significance of an association between abdominal or thoracic teratomas and testicular microlithiasis remains unclear.
|
In summary, this population study of 4819 patients referred for scrotal sonography has yielded a prevalence of 0.68% for testicular microlithiasis and a 21.6-fold relative risk for tumor in the setting of testicular microlithiasis (95% confidence limits: 10.6-fold, 44.2-fold). Although the findings do not prove a cause-and-effect relationship, they do suggest that sonographic testicular microlithiasis may indicate underlying testicular abnormality and may be a strong indirect marker of intratubular germ cell neoplasia with its proven malignant potential. Surveillance of patients with testicular microlithiasis for tumor appears mandatory. We recommend annual sonographic follow-up and patient education about self-examination.
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. W. Stengel and E. M. Remer Sonography of the Scrotum: Case-Based Review Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2008; 190(6_Supplement): S35 - S41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. W. Stengel and E. M. Remer Sonography of the Scrotum: Self-Assessment Module Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2008; 190(6_Supplement): S42 - S45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. A. Onitilo Testicular Microlithiasis: Another Starry Sky Appearance Clin. Med. Res., October 1, 2007; 5(3): 163 - 164. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. L. Lam, E. O. Gerscovich, M. C. Kuo, and J. P. McGahan Testicular Microlithiasis: Our Experience of 10 Years J. Ultrasound Med., July 1, 2007; 26(7): 867 - 873. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. M. Bach, L. E. Hann, W. Shi, C. S. Giess, H.-H. Yoo, J. Sheinfeld, and H. T. Thaler Is There an Increased Incidence of Contralateral Testicular Cancer in Patients with Intratesticular Microlithiasis? Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2003; 180(2): 497 - 500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. S. Qublan, A. S. Al-Ghoweri, K. M. Al-Jader, M. E. Kakish, N. S. Al-Kaisi, S. A. Abu-Khait, and A. Shehadeh The Diagnostic Value of Ultrasound in Differentiating Obstructive from Nonobstructive Azoospermia Based on the Presence of Testicular Microlithiasis Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, September 1, 2002; 18(5): 300 - 304. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. D. Middleton, S. A. Teefey, and C. S. Santillan Testicular Microlithiasis: Prospective Analysis of Prevalence and Associated Tumor Radiology, August 1, 2002; 224(2): 425 - 428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. J. Woodward, R. Sohaey, M. J. O'Donoghue, and D. E. Green From the Archives of the AFIP: Tumors and Tumorlike Lesions of the Testis: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation RadioGraphics, January 1, 2002; 22(1): 189 - 216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |